Researchers Find Forever Chemicals in Wildlife near Holloman AFB, NM

Frog4aday

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
1,465
Location
Tennessee, USA
I was perusing the latest headlines for Military.com and came across this:
"Researchers Find 'Extraordinary' Levels of Forever Chemicals in Wildlife near New Mexico Base"
Having an interest in things that happen in NM and being a former Air Force member, I had to click to find out what this was about.

Turns out that the wildlife that use Lake Holloman are highly contaminated with PFAS chemicals, to include the migratory birds (ducks/geese). And the chemicals never go away once they are in the body. Which means when these birds migrate and you shoot and eat one, not knowing it hung out at Lake Holloman at one time, you are getting PFAS into your body. Did I mention once they are in your body, they never go away?

Here is the link to the article:

I know in the future, the URL may not work anymore, so I've cut and pasted it below (I hope that's okay):
The Santa Fe New Mexican | By Scott Wyland
Published March 15, 2024 at 9:14am ET
A research team has found "unexpectedly high" levels of cancer-causing chemicals in birds and rodents around the artificial lake and wetlands near Holloman Air Force Base, which had discharged contaminated wastewater into that area for decades.
University of New Mexico researchers detected what they call extraordinary amounts of PFAS in 20 out of 23 bird species and in dozens of rodents that scurry around Lake Holloman, as well as ponds and wetlands, which the Air Force created as catchments for treated effluent and together form a desert oasis within the Tularosa Basin.

The team tested a mixture of ducks, songbirds and shore birds along with a blend of recently caught rodents and those whose carcasses were preserved for 30 years. The average PFAS reading both for birds and rodents was more than 10,000 parts per billion.

To put that in context, a Clovis dairy farmer had to euthanize 3,665 cows because they had 6 parts per billion of PFAS in their milk, said Christopher Witt, a UNM biology professor and lead author of the study.
"Our findings are extremely concerning for people who care about wildlife and for people who consume wildlife as hunters," Witt said.

The team's findings were published in the journal Environmental Research.
PFAS is short for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are dubbed "forever chemicals" because they take thousands of years to break down and last indefinitely in the bloodstream.

Exposure to high levels of certain PFAS can lead to high blood pressure in pregnant women, low birth weight in infants, increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer and increased cholesterol levels.

The university's report has prompted the state Department of Health to advise people against eating the meat of animals they may have hunted in the area.

A previous advisory to not drink, swim in or even touch the lake's water remains in place, Environment Department spokesman Matt Maez wrote in an email.

The findings at Lake Holloman validate action the state took when it filed a complaint against the Defense Department in 2019 for violating the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act, Maez wrote.

The Environment Department is working with the state Game and Fish Department to assess this study and determine how they should proceed, he added.

"It's infuriating that the Department of Defense continues to fight New Mexico versus fighting to clean up their own PFAS pollution," Environment Secretary James Kenney said in a statement.

PFAS has gained more attention in recent years as a growing health threat as the toxic compounds increasingly turn up in public drinking water, private wells and food.

The chemicals are so widespread they have been detected in the blood of virtually every American who has been tested for them, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

PFAS has been used in firefighting foam, along with carpets, nonstick cookware and other common household products. Firefighting foam has been blamed for the toxins contaminating groundwater at military installations, including in New Mexico. Those include the Holloman and Cannon Air Force bases and an Army National Guard site in the Santa Fe area. Much less attention has been given to how PFAS affects wildlife and ecosystems. As with humans, prolonged exposure even to low doses can harm animals.

"It's in its infancy," Witt said of this field of research. "We're just scratching the surface." Of the studies he has seen, very few show such intensive contamination of wildlife as his team's testing uncovered in the Lake Holloman area, he said.

Several years ago, state health and environmental regulators conducted tests at Lake Holloman and found PFAS levels as high as 5.9 million parts per trillion.

Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set a limit of 4 parts per trillion on PFOA and PFOS, two of the more potent compounds.

Lake Holloman and the adjacent wetlands should not be written off as an anomaly because they're so polluted with PFAS, Witt said. Wherever there's significant PFAS contamination, there's likely to be affected wildlife and, in turn, a risk to people who fish and hunt in these areas.

One of the biggest concerns is how the chemicals can bioaccumulate — or increase in magnitude as a larger predator eats smaller contaminated animals, which themselves consumed tainted prey.

At the top of the food chain are humans who could wind up getting a sizable PFAS dose, he said.
For instance, several duck species, including those people like to hunt and eat, had high levels of PFAS contamination, Witt said.

People who don't hunt often have a soft spot for certain wild animals that could be harmed by PFAS, he added.
"People might not care about mice, but they probably care about bobcats, and they definitely care about mountain lions," Witt said.

The lake, as Witt describes it, is like a super-spreader hot spot with far-flung effects. it draws 100 species of birds, with thousands stopping there on a given day to take a break.

Some fly to Alaska and others travel to the tip of South America, he said. If they're tainted with PFAS, they'll pass it to whatever animals prey on them, he added.

"They're all part of this larger water bird network ... that extends across the whole hemisphere," Witt said.
 
Well, I hate to break this to you but all of us have been exposed to PFAS/PFOS in fairly high concentrations. Basically anything non-stick or waterproof aside from natural oils has PFAS in it. It's basically everywhere. It's been found in rain practically everywhere on the globe. All military bases and airports, firefighting training areas and anywhere foam was used for a fire is a contaminated hotspot that spreads to soil, groundwater and surface water. So you can figure any body of water that is connected to a storm water discharge likely had foam washed down into it.

All of that high end raingear, loaded with it. Ever spray your boots, tents, etc, with waterproofer, loaded. Pans, carpets, car upholstery, loaded with PFAS/PFOS, as well as countless other everyday products. That includes the foam extingushers you might have at home. And there are thousands of different chemicals that fall under PFAS/PFOS.
 
Sounds really scary……until you consider 10,000 ppb is 10 parts per million. Yeah probably not the best stuff to have coursing in your bloodstream, but 10 ppm……..come on probably have the much polonium injected straight into your blood and not even get a canker sore. Disclaimer: the last part is firmly tongue in cheek commentary don't try at home 😀
 
That sounds likes a comment from DuPont... I'd rather not have any contaminant at 10 ppm in my body, especially ones that are going to be regulated at PPT levels.
They knew very well what kind of environmental issues PFAS would become and went with it anyway, not surprising though.
 
If they found these chemicals @ Holloman AFB and it was due to fire-fighting foam used, it will be present at most all air force bases (and other services installations?) meaning other bodies of water are contaminated.

That means wildlife in those areas are getting it into their systems. With migration (ducks/geese), that contamination then gets spread all over (northern & southern parts of the continent.)

Then people & predators that eat those birds are contaminated. The more you eat, the more you have in your system. And...it harms your health and the chemicals never go away so you never have less in your body, you can only get more. It depresses me.

The most frustrating part is I'm sure there were people that knew these chemicals were "forever" and would get into the environment & wildlife and warned about their use. But other people disregarded the warnings and this gets us to today. I hope science can figure out a way to neutralize these chemicals or flush them from our bodies.
 
Disappointing, yes, but most of us fill out homes with PFA's.

Flame retardant is everywhere for our 'safety'

Carpets, couches, mattresses... Yes, most western folks breathe it every day

By environmental standards, construction materials like OSB plywood should be banned, yet they get an exemption because.... How else are we to build a house?

Just another day in a fallen realm... 😉
 
For many years I bowhunted in the areas that surround BrookHaven National Labs on Long Island. Over time, I got friendly with biologists and wildlife managers in the area. I was told that all the nuclear/radioactive testing done at Brookhaven contaminated the ground with Cesium and other elements that are hazardous. They said that the grass draws the Cesium out of the ground and then the deer eat it. Tested deer have high levels of Cesium. When I asked about human consumption of these deer, I was told to limit my intake.

I never ate another deer from that area.
 
@Varmint Hunter
That's interesting. Your anecdote goes to the point of the issue. Little by little our wild game becomes riskier to consume. A lot of fishing areas now suggest you don't eat the fish or limit your intake due to mercury poisoning. And I'm getting concerned that CWD in deer & elk may pose a hazard to humans but we just haven't got enough data to see it yet. Hopefully not. But it's all troublesome when you consider the big picture.

I try to not let this get to me. Hunt, fish, & eat what you harvest and ignore the doom and gloom. You'll probably live a long life regardless...right?
 
@Varmint Hunter
That's interesting. Your anecdote goes to the point of the issue. Little by little our wild game becomes riskier to consume. A lot of fishing areas now suggest you don't eat the fish or limit your intake due to mercury poisoning. And I'm getting concerned that CWD in deer & elk may pose a hazard to humans but we just haven't got enough data to see it yet. Hopefully not. But it's all troublesome when you consider the big picture.

I try to not let this get to me. Hunt, fish, & eat what you harvest and ignore the doom and gloom. You'll probably live a long life regardless...right?

I've had several guys tell me that they eat wild hogs that are regularly eating their diesel fuel laden bait. I wouldn't eat one of those hogs on a bet. But that's just me. I'm very careful about what I eat.

I run Hepa filters in the house and all of my drinking water is run through a dense carbon block filter. We have a high incidence of cancer here on Long Island. No study has ever determined why. Why test fate?
 
Soon as my mom started cleaning or cooking I caught the PFAS. I caught the asbestos too…

Then I was in Afghanistan and the dudes who test the well water missed the high lead contamination…missed the black mold on the barracks vents too back stateside. You live, you die.
 
I often think that many of these studies are done to try to stop our use of wildlife. Hunting or fishing. I can remember 35+ years ago that they put out that fish in the rivers had mercury in them and that you shouldn't eat them. Well here it is 35 years later and many people went on with life as usual and ate a lot of fish and lived long healthy lives.
In fact I knew a guy who ate fish fresh caught from the river virtually every day of his life. He retired at 65, he fished everyday he could from an ATV, and 30 years later he died. At 95 he was still loading his ATV in his pickup using ramps.
So I am betting that all of the chemicals in the fish in the river were less detrimental to his health than the chemicals in the food we get from the grocery store.
 
Top